Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/364

 § 361.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. locomotive engineers is not such an excuse, 1 nor an increased charge by a connecting carrier. 2 But a carrier is not responsi- ble for delay occurring without its fault, when there is no ex- press agreement to transport within a specified time. 3 In the absence of special contract and notice to the carrier of special circumstances, the measure of damages for delay in the trans- portation of merchandise is the difference between its value at its destination at the time when it ought to have been delivered in the ordinary course of transportation, and its value there at the time when actually delivered. 4 The ordinary measure of damages when goods are lost or injured is their value at the place of destination, deducting freight, if unpaid. 5 i Blackstock v. N. Y. and Erie R. R. Co., 20 N. Y. 48; Read v. St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co., 60 Mo. 199; compare Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. Co. v. Hollowell, 65 Ind. 188; Pittsburgh, Ft. W. and C. R. R. Co. v. Hazen, 84 111. 36. For the liability of a telegraph com- pany for delay in transmitting a mes- sage, see Logan v. Western Un. Tel. Co., 84 111. 468; Mackey v. Same, 16 Nev. 222. 2 Condict v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 54 N. Y. 500. 3 Wibert ». N. Y. and Erie R. R. Co., 12 N. Y. 245; see Pittsburgh, Ft. W. and C. R. R. Co. v. Hazen, supra. For damages arising from a mere delay occasioned by a tempo- rary excess of business, a carrier is not responsible, if he is not in fault regarding the equipment of his road and facilities for doing the ordinary business. Galena and C. N. R. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 111. 488; Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Burrows, 33 Mich. 6; Thayer v. Burchard, 99 Mass. 508. But temporary excess of business is no excuse when a carrier has contracted to deliver within a specified time. Deming v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 48 N. H. 455. In 344 regard to the effect of time tables, see Gordon v. Mauchaster, etc., R. R., 52 N. H. 596; Le Blanche v. London, etc., Railway Co., 24 W. R. 808. 4 Ward v. New York Central R. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 29; Cutting v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 13 Allen (Mass.), 381; lngledew v. Northern Railroad, 7 Gray (Mass.), 86; Galena and C. N. R. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 111. 488; Sher- man v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 64 N. Y. 254; see Devereux v. Buckley, 34 O. St. 16; Illinois Central R. R. C. v. Cobb, 72 111. 148. Compare Priestley v. Northern Indiana, etc., R. R. Co., 26 111. 205. See as to per- ishable goods, Place v. Union Exp. Co., 2 Hilt. (N. Y.), 19; American Exp. Co. v. Smith, 33 O. St. 511; Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Bur- rows, 33 Mich. 6. 5 Northern Trans. Co. v. McClary, 66 111. 23:5; Ringgold v. Haven, 1 Cal. 108; Taylor v. Collier, 26 Ga. 122; Michigan Southern, etc., R. R. Co. v. Caster, 13 Ind. 164; McGregors. Kil- gore, 6 Ohio, 359; Robinsons. Mer- chants' Dispatch Trans. Co., 45 Iowa, 470. Compare Winne v. Illinois Cen- tral R. R. Co., 31 Iowa, 583; Breed v. Mitchell, 48 Ga. 533.