Opinion ID: 1933585
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proof of Delivery

Text: Defendants' first contention on this appeal is that plaintiff failed to prove delivery of the cargo in question to Mobile. We agree with the court below that plaintiff proved delivery of the seventy-five bags of coffee and four tires by showing that the entire cargo involved was loaded at Port au Prince, that no event during the voyage affected this cargo, and that it was unloaded in its entirety onto Mobile's pier in Philadelphia. As evidence that all the cargo was loaded at Port au Prince, the plaintiff proved that the course of its business in Port au Prince is such that any shortages in the loading of cargo would have been reflected in various business documents, but that no such error appeared. From the opinion of the learned trial judge we quote his description of these documents and their preparation. At [Port au Prince] . . . shippers deliver their goods to the dock and notify the steamship office what they are shipping. The goods are checked, weighed and inspected by customs officials. They are taken to the side of the ship and checked aboard by ship's checkers and by the wharf's checkers. The checkers inform the ship's chief officer how many items are checked aboard, where they have been put on board ship, and whether any exceptions are taken as to the condition of the cargo. The chief officer, who supervises the loading operation, signs an Over, Short & Damage Report (O.S. & D. Report) made from the checkers' inspection, and prepares the stowage plan. In the meantime bills of lading are prepared in the steamship office from the information received there from the shippers. The office is informed by the checkers what goods have been loaded and any exceptions are noted on the bills. If there are no exceptions the bills are stamped `all cargo on board.' In this case the bills show no exceptions, and there are no discrepancies between the amounts the shippers said they were shipping and the amounts actually loaded. All bills were duly stamped `all cargo on board.' There was one shipment of tires. The bill of lading called for sixty. The O.S. & D. Report showed sixty `checked complete.' The stowage plan showed that sixty were loaded in hold #7T/D ('tween decks). In addition to the coffee bills of lading involved directly in this case, which called for 604 bags in all, shippers also informed the office that they were shipping an additional 285 bags of coffee. Hence the total billed was 889 bags. The O.S. & D. Report shows 889 bags `checked complete' . . . . The stowage plan shows that 689 bags were loaded in #2 hold and 200 bags in #3B hold. No document contains any exception. We believe the court below was warranted in finding from the documents introduced that the missing cargo was loaded aboard the Panama. The Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, Act of May 4, 1939, P.L. 42, 28 P.S. §§ 91a-91d (Supp), declares: A record of an act . . . shall, in so far as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business at or near the time of the act, . . . and if, in the opinion of the court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission. It is conceded that the three separate documents introduced to establish the loading of the missing cargo at Port au Prince, (the Bill of Lading, the O.S. & D. Report, and the Stowage Plan), met the first two requirements of the act. The identity and mode of preparation of each document were established by the regular custodian thereof, and each record was compiled in the regular course of business of the carrier at the time of or immediately subsequent to the loading of the cargo aboard the vessel. However, the defendants contend that the sources of information and method of preparation of these documents did not justify their admission. They argue that the O.S. & D. Report, and the Bill of Lading and the Stowage Plan made up therefrom, embody inadmissible hearsay and are entitled to no probative weight. In support of their position they point out that the O.S. & D. Report was made up by the head checker from unidentified sources and second-hand information, and therefore it does not show that the head checker whose recitals are contained therein had personal knowledge of the loading. Thus the defendants contend (1) that the individual checkers' slips, which these records summarize, should have been introduced into evidence, and (2) that the admission of these records unfairly deprived them of an opportunity to cross-examine the checkers who actually counted the goods and made the entries. We think these arguments lack merit. No objection was made to the admission of the documents at the trial, and plaintiff was entitled to assume that it would not be necessary to introduce the records of the individual checkers or to produce corroborating testimony from the checkers themselves. More important, . . . the . . . [checkers] have in many cases changed and the former ones cannot be found; in the next place, it cannot always be ascertained accurately which . . . [checker] was concerned in each one of the transactions represented by the hundreds of entries; in the third place, even if they could be ascertained, the production of the scores of . . . [checkers], to attend court and identify in tedious succession the detailed items of transactions would interrupt and derange the work of the . . . [carrier], and the evidence would be obtained at a cost practically prohibitory; and finally, the memory of such persons, when summoned, would usually afford little real aid. 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1530 at 378 (3rd ed. 1940); Cf. Freedman v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of N.Y., 342 Pa. 404, 21 A. 2d 81 (1941). Involved as the checkers are in day-to-day loading of scores of ships, it would be highly improbable that they would be able to recall from actual memory any of the data recorded. For the foregoing reasons we hold that the court below did not abuse its discretion in admitting these documents in evidence. See 5 Wigmore, op. cit. supra, §§ 1520, 1530a.