Sherman v. Wells
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought for the purpose of charging the defendant, as a common carrier, for the value of certain bonds of the state of Michigan, intrusted to him at Buffalo, for transmission to the plaintiff at Detroit, and which he failed to deliver.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought for the purpose of charging the defendant, as a common carrier, for the value of certain bonds of the state of Michigan, intrusted to him at Buffalo, for transmission to the plaintiff at Detroit, and which he failed to deliver. The defendant put in an answer denying that he was a common carrier, or liable as such, and- alleging that he was the president of the American Express Company, an association transacting a general express agency, for hire, but not doing business as common carriers. The answer also put…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Davies, P. J.
The facts are succinctly and correctly stated in the referee’s report, and the only question presented is, are the defendants liable for the loss of the bonds intrusted to them ? That the defendants are common carriers, cannot, we think, be doubted. It was settled that they were, in the case of Russell v. Livingston, in this court, (19 Barb. 346.) The judgment in that case was reversed in the court of appeals, (16 New York Rep. 515,) but on an entirely different point. The defendants being, therefore, common carriers, and there being no special contract, the parties…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Russell v. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by6 opinions
- Sweet v. . BarneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- United States Express Co. v. RushIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
- Harris v. . MoodyNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Sweet v. BarneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Sunderland v. WestcottThe Superior Court of New York City · 1870
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.