Fairchild v. Slocum
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit against the defendants as common carriers, tried at the Jefferson circuit in December, 1835, before the Hon. Hiram Denio, then one of the circuit judges.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit against the defendants as common carriers, tried at the Jefferson circuit in December, 1835, before the Hon. Hiram Denio, then one of the circuit judges. In November, 1832, a contract was entered into in the city of New-York by one Samuel T. Armstrong as the agent of the defendants, with an agent of the plaintiff for the transportation of a quantity of merchandize belonging to the plaintiff, from the city of New-York to Ogdensburgh on th® river St. Lawrence ; it was stipulated, that if the canal froze up before the goods could be got through, the defendants…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Bronson, J.
The defendants insist, first, that no joint contract was proved to carry the goods beyond Oswego, and that as to Lake Ontario the defendants were not carriers, but were at most only forwarders by the owners of lake vessels; second, that for a loss on the lake, they could only file liable on proof of gross negligence ; third, that no wánt of diligence or care was shown; and fourth, that there was a fatal variance between the declaration and . the contract proved.
That Armstrong, acting as the agent of the defendants, contracted to carry the plaintiff’s goods from New…
2Cited by17 opinions
- McMillan v. Mich. S. & N. I. R. R.Michigan Supreme Court · 1867
- Christenson v. American Express Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1870
- Perkins v. Portland, Saco & Portsmouth RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1859
- Moore v. EvansNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Peterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1890
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.