Lumber Legal Opinions

by Unknown

Question.—Should the railroad in settling claims for shortage of lumber pay for it at our cost price or at the current market price?

Reply: Unless the contract between the shipper and carrier provides for some other measure of damages, the principal amount to be paid by the carrier when the lumber is lost or destroyed is the market value at destination. If the freight has not been paid in advance it is to be deducted from market value. There is to be added, on the other hand, interest at the legal rate from the day on which delivery should have been made to the day of settlement; and there is to be added also any incidental expense to which the consignee may have been put as a direct result of the carrier’s failure to do his duty. This is the only way in which the consignee can be placed in as favorable a position as he would have occupied if the carrier had done his duty, the only way in which the whole of the loss can be placed upon the carrier, who has caused it; and this is what the law aims to do in every case.

Opinion No. 59.

SUIT CAN BE INSTITUTED IN NEW JERSEY ON JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN ANOTHER STATE.

Question.—Some time ago I secured a judgment in Pennsylvania against a party who now lives in New Jersey, and has some property there. Can I make collection in New Jersey?

Reply: A judgment of a Pennsylvania court can be enforced by a levy on property in New Jersey, without regard to the place of residence of either the plaintiff or defendant. If this judgment was secured in Pennsylvania it is without force in New Jersey. In that case, however, another suit can be started in New Jersey, and the proceedings will be brief and inexpensive; he will have to prove merely that suit was previously brought in Pennsylvania, in a court of competent jurisdiction, and judgment rendered in his favor. Judgment in New Jersey will follow immediately and as a matter of course; under that judgment he can levy on property in New Jersey.

Opinion No. 60.

NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY FOR CARRIER TO NOTIFY CONSIGNOR THAT SHIPMENT IS REJECTED BY CONSIGNEE.

Question.—Have we a claim on the transportation company for the invoice value of the shipment under the following conditions: We made a shipment of a car of lumber, and when it arrived at destination the railroad offered it to consignee and he refused it. Some time later the railroad sold the lumber for what it would bring, which, it appears, was only about 50 per cent. of our invoice. Is the transportation company under obligation, in a case of this kind, to notify the shipper that the lumber is at destination refused and thereby give the shipper an opportunity to dispose of the lumber without loss?

Reply: If a carrier has no notice to the contrary, he is entitled to assume that the consignee is owner of the lumber and that any delivery or disposition of it of which the consignee cannot complain will be satisfactory to all persons. If the goods are sent C. O. D. or if the carrier is instructed not to deliver them to the consignee until they are paid for, or if he receives any instructions from which he may infer that the consignor retains title to the goods, in any such case, it becomes the carrier’s duty to inform the consignor of the consignee’s refusal to accept the goods. The same result follows if the carrier is expressly directed to give such notice and if he accepts the goods under these directions. In any other case the carrier is not bound to assume that the goods have been sold and that the consignor is retaining title to them to secure payment of the purchase price, or that the consignor has any interest in them at all. He may assume that the consignee has already paid for them, or that they were the property of the consignee before shipment. The consignor has put it in the power of the consignee to take the goods and do as he pleases with them, and the carrier is bound merely to act in such manner that the consignee may have no valid ground of complaint. In the absence of special instructions to the carrier, or of knowledge on his part that the goods belong to the consignor, the rule is simply this: That the carrier is not to be expected to deal with two different persons with reference to a single shipment or the disposition to be made of it; that he may safely assume such an understanding between consignor and consignee that they will keep each other informed, if necessary, and that anything that satisfies the consignee will satisfy the consignor. There is nothing in the question asked to show that it was the carrier’s duty to notify the consignor in this case.