Blackstock v. New York & Erie Railroad
The Superior Court of New York City
This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment for the plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The following, as it appears from the case and the report of the referee, are the material facts upon which his decision was founded.
Read the full summary
This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment for the plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The following, as it appears from the case and the report of the referee, are the material facts upon which his decision was founded. The action was brought to recover damages incurred by reason of delay in the delivery of goods received by the defendants, as common carriers, for transportation upon their railroad, from places in the vicinity of Hornellsville to the city of New York. The goods consisted of potatoes, which it was alleged became decayed, and greatly deteriorated in value,…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Woodruff, J.
We have had occasion, quite recently, to follow the decision made in the case of Parsons v. Hardy, 14 Wend, 215; and approved in Wibert v. The New York & Erie Rail Road Company, 2 Kernan, 245. The principle, of which cases, is that a common carrier, in respect to the time of the delivery of goods received for carriage, in the absence of an express agreement, is only bound to due diligence, and he may excuse delay by proof of accident or misfortune, although not inevitable in the highest sense of that word, i. e., i he is not responsible for delays occurring without Ms fault. And / upon this…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Geismer v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Tierney v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Solms v. Rutgers Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Frawley v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1927
- Geismer v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886