Court Opinion

ID: 9787720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:23:02.138708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:59.901116
License: Public Domain

Van Voorhis, J. (dissenting).
I concur in the dissent of Judge Dye. This shipment was required to be rejected under the filed tariffs ‘ unless the actual or market value is declared by shipper and marked by him' upon the package. ’ ’ Fifty dollars *109was marked on the package.. Oral notice to the truckman that it might be worth more than this was not effective notice to the carrier, the truckman was not charged with that amount of responsibility, he would not normally have been expected to report such knowledge to the general officers or agents of the company before receiving the package nor is defendant chargeable with knowing what he knew when he received the parcel (Corrigan v. Bobbs-Merrill Co., 228 N. Y. 58). Once this shipment had been delivered to defendant and accepted by it under the false statement of value made by plaintiff, what was defendant to do? Plaintiff cannot take advantage of its own wrong.
Judges Fuld, Froessel, Burke and Foster concur with Chief Judge Desmond ; Judge Dye dissents in an opinion in which Judge Van Voorhis concurs in a separate memorandum.
Judgment affirmed.