Case Name: The J. Russell Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. The New Haven Steamboat Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1873-05-06
Citations: 52 N.Y. 657
Docket Number: 
Parties: The J. Russell Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. The New Haven Steamboat Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 52
Pages: 657–658

Head Matter:
The J. Russell Manufacturing Company, Respondent, v. The New Haven Steamboat Company, Appellant.
(Argued April 4, 1873;
decided May 6, 1873.)
Where a manufacturing company has been in the habit of shipping its goods daily by a common carrier to its agent for sale, and it has been the long established course of dealing for the consignee to call daily and receive the goods upon their arrival without notice, no notice to the consignee of the arrival of any consignment is necessary, but the carrier is discharged when the goods are unloaded at the accustomed place and the consignee has had time to remove them.
Where, however, the usage has been for the consignee not to receive or remove goods arriving upon a holiday, as to goods arriving upon such a day the ordinary rule applies, and the carrier, ta relieve himself from liability as such, must give notice and a reasonable time to remove, otherwise the liability attaches until after a reasonable time for removal upon the next day. (S. 0., 50 N. Y., 121, explained.)
. This action was brought to recover the value of a quantity of goods shipped by defendant’s boat from New Haven to New York and destroyed by fire after their arrival in the latter city, and after being unladen upon defendant’s wharf. The case, upon a former appeal, is' reported in 50 N. Y., 121. The facts appearing upon the second trial bearing upon defendant’s liability as common carrier are substantially the same as upon the first. The court simply reiterated the former opinion, with the explanation that, the court then did not mean to be understood as holding that it was not in the power of the defendant to relieve itself from liability on the fourth of July, but that as to goods arriving upon that day the case stood as if no custom had been shown and defendant’s liability was the ordinary liability of common, carriers, requiring notice to the consignee of the arrival and a reasonable time thereafter to remove the goods in order to discharge themselves. In other words, that upon the fourth of July the parties were remitted to their rights and duties as if no usage existed.
S. P. Hash for the appellant.
H. M. Buggies for the respondent.

Opinion:
Folger, J.,
reads opinion for affirmance.
All concur, except Andrews, J., not voting.
Judgment affirmed.