Case Name: Nancy P. Morley vs. Eastern Express Company
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1874-10-28
Citations: 116 Mass. 97
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nancy P. Morley vs. Eastern Express Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 97–98

Head Matter:
Nancy P. Morley vs. Eastern Express Company.
Hampden.
September 22.
October 28, 1874.
Morton & Endicott, JJ., absent.
Evidence that A. delivered a box containing his property to a common carrier at one town to be carried to another town; that the box was directed to B. at the latter town; that A. had made efforts to find the box, but had not been able to do so; that he had made inquiries at both towns at the offices of the carrier; that he had not seen the box since he sent it; that he had inquired of B. about the box; is not sufficient evidence to maintain an action by A. against the carrier for the value of the box and its contents, although the defendant put in no evidence.
Contbact, to recover the value of a box and its contents, delivered to the defendant at Lewiston, in the State of Maine, to be carried to Dexter, in the same state.
Trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., who, after a verdict for the plaintiff, allowed the following bill of exceptions : “No question was made as to the delivery of the package to the defendant company, or that it was a common carrier. The plaintiff offered no other witness than herself, and she testified as follows;
“ ‘ I had worked at Lewiston in the mills. I left there August 17, 1869. I boxed up the goods in question, which were my own and mostly my wearing apparel, in a large box, which was nailed and fastened with cleats, and delivered it to the defendant’s office in Lewiston. The box was marked Edward Gough, Dexter, Maine. I have made efforts to find the box, but have never been able to do so. I have made inquiries at Lewiston and Dexter, at the offices of said express company, for this box. I have not received it or heard from it since. I made inquiries of the agent. I asked Edward Sands. He was in the express office. He was writing in the office. No one else was in charge. I also made inquiry of Gough about the box. I have not seen it since I sent it.’ The rest of her testimony related only to the value of the contents of the box. No testimony was offered by the defendant.
“ Upon this evidence the defendant asked the court to rule that the plaintiff had not offered sufficient proof to sustain her case. But the court refused, and submitted the case to the jury under instructions. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
N. A. Leonard & G. Wells, for the defendant.
G. M. Stearns & M. P. Knowlton, for the plaintiff, cited
Morse v. Connecticut River Railroad, 6 Gray, 450; Ingledew v. Northern Railroad, 7 Gray, 86.

Opinion:
Wells, J.
There was no evidence that the box had not been delivered to Gough, according to the directions with which it was sent by the plaintiff. Giving the fullest effect to the testimony of the plaintiff, it had no more tendency to show that the box was withheld or had been lost by the defendant than by Gough. The burden in this respect was upon the plaintiff, and she failed to maintain it. Smith v. First National Bank in Westfield, 99 Mass. 605. Exceptions sustained.