Court Opinion

ID: 8309835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-17 13:46:54.983999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:44:41.011354
License: Public Domain

Treat, J.
The views of the court heretofore expressed1 control as to the law. The action is for damages sustained in consequence of unnecessary delay by a common carrier in the delivery of goods. The court has been largely aided by counsel, through tabulation of many dates pertaining to the injury, but has still been left to ascertain values at Dundee, Scotland, at two dates, as best it could, through a mass of papers which are vague and uncertain. The first point presented is as to the right of the plaintiff to recover in his own name. The allegation is indistinct; but the defect, if any, may be considered as supplied by the proofs, viz., the right of the surviving partner to sue. An analysis as to the various shipments, and as to the times when the property shipped should respectively have reached Dundee under the circumstances, and also as to the prices at the time when the flour should have arrived and when it did actually arrive, shows that there were only six car-loads which arrived at Dundee on February 18th, instead of February 4th. From February 4th to February 18th there was no change in prices. There were two car-loads which should have arrived on February 4th, but did not arrive until March 26th or March 30th. There was a fall in the prices between those dates of one shilling per sack, making a loss of ¿620, which, at United States rates, amount to $97.32, for which judgment will be entered.