Court Opinion

ID: 6414455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:55:06.985373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:29.509107
License: Public Domain

Dewey J.*
The instructions given were correct, and sufficiently full to guide the jury as to their verdict.
The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that the engine was carried by a truckman to the freight station of the defendants, to be transported to South Abington; that notice of its arrival was given to the freight agent, who directed the truckman to drive near a derrick by a certain track at which heavy articles were laden upon the cars, and there wait till the men came, when they would run in a car and put it on board; that the truckman followed this order, and the men came, run in a car, and commenced loading the engine, the agent of the defendants superintending and directing the work, and the truck-man being present also, giving assistance to prevent the chain *83which had been placed around the engine from slipping. The mode of placing the engine upon the cars by means of a derrick was an arrangement of the defendants, and they provided the derrick for that purpose.
The evidence on the part of the defendants, as to the superintendence and control of the operation of removing the engine from the sled of the truckman to the cars, conflicted with that of the plaintiff; and this was submitted to the jury. It became necessary tó ascertain at what point, as respects the rights of the bailor, the truckman^ responsibility for the safe transportation of the engine ceased, and when the same was cast upon the defendants. The court properly ruled that it was when the engine was delivered to and accepted by them for the purpose of transportation, and that in order to constitute such delivery and acceptance it must appear that the defendants had through their agent taken and assumed the charge and custody of the engine for the purpose of transportation. Story on Bailm. § 453.
Of course in deciding the question when the custody does thus attach, much will depend upon the manner in which they receive goods for transportation, the provision they make for raising heavy articles into their cars, and the active participation of the agent of the company in reference to the same.
As to warehousemen, it has been held that as soon as the goods arrive and the crane of the warehouse is applied to them to raise them into the warehouse, the liability of the warehouseman commences, and it is no defence that they are afterwards injured by falling into the street from the breaking of the tackle. Story on Bailm. § 445.
In the opinion of the court, the instructions were sufficiently full, and the further instructions assed were properly refused.
Exceptions overruled.

 Bigelow, C. J. did not sit in this case.