Case Name: SPIERO v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-06-18
Citations: 117 N.Y.S. 1039
Docket Number: 
Parties: SPIERO v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 117
Pages: 1039–1043

Head Matter:
SPIERO v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 18, 1909.)
1. Damages (§ 62 )-—Carriage of Freight—Misdelivery—Reduction.
A shipper, whose goods were misdelivered by the carrier to another carrier and transported to a wrong destination, was not bound to reduce the damages by reshipping the goods to the starting point and then to the proper destination, causing a delay of three or four weeks, rather than direct from the wrong to the proper destination, where under obligation to make prompt delivery, and also because the suggested action is more than required by the rule that plaintiff must use reasonable care to make the damages as small as possible.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Damages, Cent. Dig. §§ 124-132; Dec. Dig. § 62. ]
2. Customs and Usages (§ 19 )—Evidence— Sufficiency.
In an action against a carrier for the misdelivery of goods to a steamship company and their transportation to a wrong destination, a custom offered in defense that the goods, being on the dock with other goods, no matter how marked, were properly taken aboard, should be unequivocally established.
[Ed. Note.—For. other cases, see Customs and Usages, Cent. Dig. § 46: Dec. Dig. § 19 ]
3. Carriers (§ 174 )—Cabbiage of Fbeight—Misdeliveby—Defenses.
In an action against a carrier for misdelivery of goods to a steamship company and their transportation to a wrong destination," it is not a defense that the indorsement of the arrival notice, issued by" the carrier, failed to direct the detention of a part of the goods, where the indorsement directed the goods to be delivered to the steamship company “per permit attached," and such permit specified that only a part of the goods were to be received on the steamship for shipment.
[Eld. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Dec. Dig. § 174. ]
4. Carriers (§ 185 )—Carriage of Freight—Misdeliveby—Evidence—Sufficiency.
Two days prior to the arrival of goods -over a carrier’s line, and on April 20th, an order was given plaintiff directing the carrier to" deliver the goods to him. It-was stipulated that within a few days after April 22d plaintiff presented the order to the carrier, but that he refused to deliver the goods. On April 26th or 27th the carrier delivered the goods, with others, to a steamship company, and they were carried to a wrong destination. Held, in an action against the carrier for misdelivery of the goods, that the absence of a stipulated date of the receipt of the order by the carrier did not justify the presumption of its nonreceipt until after the steamship had sailed, but, on the contrary, the order being in plaintiff’s hands April 22d, and he being obligated to make prompt delivery, the more reasonable presumption was that the carrier received the order prior thereto.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Dec. Dig. § 185. ]
Lehman, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First' District.
Action by Joseph Spiero against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before DAYTON, SEABURY. and LEHMAN, JJ.
Alexander S. Lyman (William Mann, of counsel), for appellant.
Oakes, Van Amringe, Schurz & Davis (Charles Oakes, of counsel), for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
DAYTON, J.
The facts are undisputed, and in brief are as follows: Plaintiff, through Geo. W. Sheldon & Co., gave an order to defendant for the shipment of 14 cases of desk lumber, marked "S. L. T., Paris," France, from Herkimer, N. Y., to the city of New York. At the same time defendant transported 10 cases of like lumber, marked "L. C. S., London," England, from Herkimer to this city, for Geo. W. Sheldon & Co. On the arrival of these 24 cases at New York, Sheldon & Co. received from defendant on arrival notice and thereupon indorsed the notice as follows:
"Deliver the within mentioned property subject to the above conditions to S. S. Mesaba, at [as] per permit attached."
The property was described in the notice as follows:
"10 C. S. Desks K. D. flat in white L. C. D. London.
"14 C. S. " " " " " " S. L. T. Paris."
The Atlantic Transport Line issued its permit for shipment in part as follows:
"April 22, 1907.
"Please receive from G.'W. Sheldon Co., for shipment to London, per steamship Mesaba, 10 cases desk- lumber, to be delivered alongside Thursday."
Notwithstanding the explicit designation of the 14 cases in the notice, and the nonmention of them, but, on the contrary, the limited and only specification of 10 cases in the permit, the 14 cases were also put aboard the Mesaba and landed in London, where plaintiff's agent obtained and reshipped them to France at an expense of $360.23, which sum plaintiff sued to recover, and had judgment. Defendant appeal's.
Appellant contends that plaintiff's damages could have been reduced by reshipping the goods to New York and again to France, causing a delay of but three or four weeks. One answer to this is that plaintiff was obligated to make prompt delivery at Paris. Another answer is that the course suggested on the facts here, goes beyond the rule of "reasonable exertion to render the injuries as light as possible." Appellant also contends that according to "custom" the 14 cases, with the 10 cases, being on the dock, no matter how marked, were properly taken aboard the Mesaba. The evidence offered on that subject conr'sted of opinions of defendant's witnesses, who did not" <-ite a general parallel instance to support their opinions. Such a remarkable custom should be unequivocally established.
Appellant also contends that the indorsement of the arrival notice, "Deliver within mentioned property to S. S. Mesaba," fails to direct or require detention of part of the property; but the words "per permit attached" were a part of the indorsement, and as before stated the permit specifies only the 10 cases for London. Furthermore, it is admitted that the property arrived in New York City April 22, 1907. Two days previously, and on April 20, 1907, Sheldon & Co. gave to plaintiff an order directing defendant to deliver the "fourteen cases of desk lumber S. L. T. Paris" to plaintiff. (See Exhibit C.) The parties stipulated that within a few days after April 22d plaintiff presented Exhibit C to defendant, but defendant refused to deliver said property. The absence of a stipulated date of the receipt of said order by defendant does not justify the presumption of its nonreceipt until after the Mesaba had sailed. On the contrary, the order dated April 20th being in plaintiff's hands April 22d, he being obligated to make prompt delivery at Paris, the more reasonable presumption is that defendant received the order prior to April 26th or 27th. Defendant contracted to transport these 14 cases from Herkimer to this city, and was directed to deliver them to plaintiff, but neglected to do so through no fault of plaintiff.
The judgment is right, and should be affirmed, with costs.
SEABURY, J., concurs.