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.
Administrative
William Acheson et al., Respondents, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant
61 N.Y. 652·New York Commission of Appeals·1875·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
William Acheson et al., Respondents, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.
(Argued September 21, 1874;
decided January term, 1875.)
This was an action to recover damages to property shipped by plaintiff over defendant’s road, alleged to have been occasioned by negligent delay in transportation. The property was received by defendant at Buffalo, November 6, 1869, directed to Troy. The usual running time between the two places was twenty hours. It did not reach Troy until November seventeenth. Defendant proved that its road was in good order and well equipped; that the car in which the property was loaded was connected with a train on the eighth November and run on to a side track, and there remained until the fifteenth, when it was sent forward. It also gave evidence tending to show that the delay was occasioned by an accumulation of freight at Buffalo beyond the capacity of the road to carry, and that the train was sent forward in its regular order. Plaintiff, in reply, showed by defendant’s books at the Troy depot several instances where goods, which were billed at Buffalo after the eighth, arrived at Troy in an average time of less than two days after the dates of the bills, and also that the date of the way-bill indicated the date the car was loaded and placed with the train. Held, that this evidence tended to prove that the car containing the property in question was not sent forward in its regular order, and made the question one of fact for the jury, whose determination could not be here reviewed.
Esek Cowen for the appellant.
E. F. Bullard for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Gray, C.,]
Gray, C.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.