Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Cain, Shuford o..
Campbell's Case.
Carroll o. Watkins.
Comet, The....
Crescent City, &c. Co., Live Stock, &c. Asssociation 0...
Crowell, Potter 0..

302 185 474 451

388

Cuyler

89 169

0. Ferrill

Driggs

0. Moore.

440

Fairchilds, United States v....
Farrand's Case....
Ferrill, Cuyler t...
Fideliter, The...
Fifty-six barrels of Whiskey, United States 0...
Finlay, United States v..

74 140 169 577

93 364 246

Fox, Avery 0....

[blocks in formation]

Thirty-three barrels of Spirits, United States 0......... 311 Three Horses, United States 0..

426 Three Railroad Cars, United States o.'.

196 Turner's Case....

84 Twelve thousand three hundred and forty-seven bags of Sugar, United States v.

407

Union Horse Shoe Works o. Lewis...

518 United States v. Barrows.

351 United States o. Fairchilds.

74 United States o. Fifty-six barrels of Whiskey.

93 United States o. Finlay ..

364 United States v. Harris

110 United States o. Learned.

483 United States c. McGinnis.

120 United States o. Nelson...

135 United States o. Olney.

275 United States o. One hundred and twenty-three casks of Distilled Spirits...

573 United States c. Rhodes

28 United States o. Sa-coo-da-cot.

377 United States v. Shepard

431 United States o. Simons..

470 United States o. Six Fermenting Tubs.

268 United States o, Stevenson .....

495 United States o. Thirty-three barrels of Spirits..

311 United States v. Three Horses.. .

426 United States o. Three Railroad Cars..

196

PAGE

United States o. Twelve thousand three hundred and forty-seven bags of Sugar.....

407 United States v. Walsh

66

[blocks in formation]

DECISIONS

OF THE

CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS

OF THE

UNITED STATES.

1865–1870.

THE MARY WASHINGTON.

Circuit Court, Fourth Circuit ; District of Maryland,

April T., 1865.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors]

The duty of a common carrier by water is not fulfilled by simple trans

portation from port to port. The goods must be delivered; or at least landed, and a reasonable opportunity given to the consignee to inspect them. The general rule requires the carrier to notify the consignee of the

arrival of the goods. If a carrier relies on circumstances as excusing

this duty, he must prove them. To show that the carrier was accustomed to store goods in his ware

house, on their arrival, and let them remain there until the consignee should learn from the consignor that they had come, without showing that the consignor knew of and assented to this practice, is not enough to excuse the carrier from the duty of giving notice himself to the consignee. He will continue liable as carrier, until the consignee has received, from some quarter, information of the arrival of

the goods and an opportunity to remove them. The fact that after receiving such notice the consignee refuses to take

the goods, cannot relieve the carrier from liability for injury sustained

by them before that time. The courts of the United States have not jurisdiction of actions

against warehousemen, as such, prosecuted between citizens of the same State.

« PreviousContinue »