The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1912-03-21
!; the State Supreme Court
(which Lays Down An
Important Rule.

Delaney We Sh'NSN S'tNtNo Ia
ess Company, in an opinion by
lesident Brannon, handed down
esday The court held that where
carrier receives goods for trans
rtation pjart of the way to desti-
ton, and delivers the goods at
end OF its carriage to another
rrler for carriage to destination.
contract is several and there may
suit only against the carrier
lat is liable for delay of transpor-
ion
Originally A. l.. Delaney brought
ton before justice against the
hited States Express Company and
bans Express Company, and the
Sc went on appeal to the circuit
urt. In that court the plaintiff
tered non suit as to the Adams
kpress Company, and recovered al
rdlct and judgment against the
nited States Expess Company,
hich company appealed to the su-
eme court of the state. The con-
oyersy was over the shipment of
drill from Elkins to Salem, this
ate The Adams company carry
Il It from Elkins to Belington, and
United States company from
llngton to Salem. At least that
ls to be the shipment. There was
ngderable delay in the delivery
the drill, and Delaney brought
It and recovered.
The higher court in the syllabus
lids that where written complalnt
fled in an action before Justice
Iainst a carrier for delay of trans
rtation OF goods, in order to re-
yer, not of general, but special
images resulting from such delay,
IRE must be in the complaint some
I,3lication of the grounds for spe-
II damages; and there must also
notice to the carrier, at the time
shipment, of circumstances call
for speed Of transportation.
"The rule that a carrier Is an in
rer OF safe dlivery of goods com
tied to. it for transportation does
apply to liability for delay of
nsportation," says the court. I'm
rh case the carrier is not bound to
highest possible or utmost care
rapid transportation, but only
reasonable and ordinary care and
igence to valid delay. A bill of
Ping for goods shipped given by u
frier fixing their value. and pro-
ping that the carrier shall in no.
ent be liable beyond that value, re-
les to loss of goods, and does not
eclude recovery for delay of trans
rtation or fix amount of damages
delay"
Lower Court Affirmed.
|rhe lower court was justified in
fect!ng a verdict for the defendant
the case of the Board of Educa-
IN of Elk District of Mineral
unty against Mrs. Martha Harvey.
Is the opinion of the supreme court
an opinion written by Judge VIII
ms
"a party to suit is competent to
fifty in his own behalf, aainst a
rd of education in relation to a
|sonal transaction between him
and deceased member of such
Rrd, says the court, and "a board
education, at regular meeting,
lawfully appoint one of its
mbers its agent to procure nee
ay ground on which to erect a
pic school house: and, if such
ent, acting within the scope of his
Ehority procure lease of ground,
Pm reasonable terms with a land
per- he thereby binds his princi-
he board of education sued Mrs.
rtha Harvey before justice of
peace for the value OF a public
Dol house, and obtained iudg-
PIT, Mrs. Harvey appealed to the
putt court, and. on trial therein
the court directed verdict for
and entered judgment thereon.
board of education then went to
supreme court on writ of err
'he school house had been built
Mrs. Haryey's lot by the board
education about eighteen years
pre- the suit was instituted, but
not been used for public school
poses for about four years. Just
pre- the bringing of the suit, the
Rrd OF education had advertised
school house for sale, whereupon
Harvey took possession of it,
ming It as her, property. No
d -ot sale or lease was made to
board OF education for the lot on