Schieffelin v. Harvey
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The defendant was owner of the ship Science, Thomas Howard, master, and received on board, at New-Tork, a quantity of goods belonging to the plaintiffs, to be carried to London.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The defendant was owner of the ship Science, Thomas Howard, master, and received on board, at New-Tork, a quantity of goods belonging to the plaintiffs, to be carried to London. The bill of lading stated the goods to be “ 19 bales and 4 boxes of merchandises, the sole property of the shipper, &c. , being marked and numbered as m the margin, and are to be delivered, &c. at London, (the danger of the excepted,) unto Effingham Lawrence and Sons, or their assigns, he or they paying freight for the same 12/. 4s. 2d. sterling, for the whole, with primage and average…
1Opinion of the CourtVan Ness, J.
I am entirely satisfied with the finding of the jury on the matter of fact which was submitted to their consideration by the learned judge before whom the cause was tried. The loss of a part of the nutmegs was satisfactorily proved by the plaintiffs’ witnesses, and their evidence is not shaken by what was testified by the mate, even admitting what he ‘"swore to have been believed by the jury. It is altogether probable that the nutmegs were purloined by the custom-house officers, while they were stowed in the ship’s hold, in London.. But this is a loss for which the defendant is liable, unless…
2Cited by13 opinions
- McMillan v. Mich. S. & N. I. R. R.Michigan Supreme Court · 1867
- Hooper v. Wells, Fargo & Co.California Supreme Court · 1864
- Perry v. MarshSupreme Court of Alabama · 1854
- Wells and Tucker v. . the Steam Navigation CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Langford v. NevinTexas Supreme Court · 1927
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.