Hersfield v. Adams
New York Supreme Court
MOTION for judgment, upon a. case, from which the following facts appeared. The plaintiffs were partners, merchants, having a house at New York and another at San Francisco. The defendants were partners transacting express business, the forwarding and care of packages for hire from the city of New York to San Francisco, in California.
Read the full summary
MOTION for judgment, upon a. case, from which the following facts appeared. The plaintiffs were partners, merchants, having a house at New York and another at San Francisco. The defendants were partners transacting express business, the forwarding and care of packages for hire from the city of New York to San Francisco, in California. The defendants did not ■ own any of the means (vessels and boats) of transportation between New York and San Francisco, neither were they in any manner interested in them, nor had they the least management or control of them, either in person or by agents. The…
1Opinion of the CourtMorris, J.
The defendants in this case, not being owners of, or interested in, the vessels and boats in which these trunks were to be conveyed between New York and San Francisco, were not common carriers, and are not liable as such. The defendants are bailees jar hire to receive these trunks at, and to forward them from and to, place to place, to destination, by the ordinary and approved means of conveyance, and had a legal right to define the extent of their liability. By the contract in this case, the defendants obligated themselves to deliver the trunks and contents specified to Mr. Burnett at San…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Read v. SpauldingThe Superior Court of New York City · 1859
- Place v. Union Express Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1858