Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Torts · MBE-tested
Harvey Holden, Respondent, v. The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant
54 N.Y. 662·New York Commission of Appeals·1873·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Harvey Holden, Respondent, v. The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued March 5, 1873;
decided June term, 1873.)
This was an action to recover damages for alleged negligence of defendant in the transportation of goods intrusted to it as a common carrier.- The plaintiff, on the 19th of December, 1856, delivered to defendant, at Syracuse, a quantity of poultry designed for the New York market, and directed to “S. M. Fuller, 16 Water, street, New York,” to be carried to Albany for the purpose of having the same, immediately upon its arrival at Albany, shipped to New York. The usual -running time for freight trains between Syracuse and Albany was, at that time, about fifteen hours, and from Albany to New York, upon the Hudson River road, was from ten to twelve hours. The poultry did not reach Albany by the defendant’s train until the twenty-third of December. On the following day it was delivered to the Hudson River Railroad Company, and by it conveyed to Hew York, where it arrived on the twenty-ninth of the same month. The poultry, between the time of its shipment at Syracuse and its arrival at Hew York, had been greatly impaired in value by reason of its having been frozen and thawed. The only questions considered on the appeal were as to the reception of evidence.
Plaintiff was permitted to prove, under objection, the condition of the poultry on its arrival in Hew York as tending, to show its condition at Albany; also, the market price in Hew York on the twenty-second, twenty-third and twenty-fourth days of December, and its market value when received. Held, no error.
James R. Cox, for the appellant.,
Milo Goodrich for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Gray, C.,]
Gray, C.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur; Johnson, C., not sitting.
Judgment affirmed.