TJ:lE GOLDEN RULE.·
D. Louisiana. November 18, 1881.)
Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written contract.
OOMMON OARRIER-DELAY IN DELIVERy-DAMAGES·.
In the ordinary case of delay by a common carrier in delivering goods, the measure of damages is the difference in their market value at the time when actually delivered and when they should have been delivered.
In Admiralty. 1. R. Beckwith and E. D. Craig, for libellant. B. Egan, for claimants. PARDEE, O. J. This isll. suit brought on a bill of lading to recover damages for the failure to deliver in time the goods shipped. The first question is as to whether the defendants had the right to disregard the bill of lading because of representations said to have been made by the drayman who delivered the goods to the steam-boat, to clerk, following which the goods were stowed as through .freight for New Orleans, and not as way freight; so that when the landing was reached the gopds could not be landed without ,great trouble and delay. . The goods were, therefore, notlanded on the down trip of.the boat, but were landed on the return trip, causing a delay of about eight days. Such a defence cannot be listened to, as :otheJ.'wise !'lvery bill of lading could be altered or varied by the recollections. of a. steam-boat mate, or the. interference of disinterested p&xties. .The carrying contract, reduced to writing in a bill of lading, can no more be altered ,or varied by parol evidence than a'ny other written contrll.ct. See The Delaware, 14 Wall. 579. But, outside of this, ,unauthorized parties certainly cannot change the contract between the ship and the shipper. , The other question is. as to the rule of damages. The freight ,shipped was about 140 wheelbarr0ws, and the libellant claims. that, at the place of landing, he had a contract or job to repair or build a levee, with 125 men in waiting to use the wheelbarrows; and that during the delay the men could not work; and that libellant was compelled to keep and support the men at an expense of $1.25 each per day, thereby being damaged to that extent by the negligent failure of the defendant boat to deliver the freight in time. A statement of libellant's claim seems to decide it against him, particularly as there is no showing whatever that the defendant boat was in anywise
'lfHeported by Joseph P. Horner, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.
a.dvised of the cirCllmstances rendering the :deliveryo'f the rows iJ, matter of urgency. These damages claimed are consequential. Without notice of urgency and' spechU coJtract "the'measure of 'dam.: ages, for delay in delivery of goods shipped by a common carrier, is' the difference in the market value at the time of the delivery and 'the time when the goods should have ,been delivered. See Desty, Adm., § 256. As to any such difference in value there is no evidence. The libel was properly dismissed in the district court,and the same. , decree will be entered in this court. ':' ,
THE SYLVAN GLEN,
, , (Di8tricl Oourt, E. D.New York. Octbuer 4, 1881.)
ADMIRALTY -AOTS CAUSING DEATH - ACTION IN litEM FOR DAMAGES':"" LIEN UNDER THE STATUTE OF NEW YORn:. ,J
A row.boat containing .two men anq woman, crossing the river at New York just at dusk, was struck and capsized by a steam-boat pi a regular line plying to Harlem, and While the men were savedthii woman drowned. An action in rem for damages being brought 1>y the husbaD!:Lof tile deceased woman as administratof, held, that the statute of the stllte of }lew York created no maritime lien for, sucb alld no right of action to, libellant arose therefrom. ".
W. W. Goodrich, for libella1l:t. 'i R. D. Benedict, for claimant. , " , ". BENEDIC1', D. J. This ,action ,is brought by John istrator of Margaret Welsh, deceased, to, recover, 'for the benefit Of himself and the next of kin of Margaret Welsh, the damages tained by hiinand such next of kin by reason of the death of said Welsh, which death, it is averred, was caused the gence of those in charge of the flylvan, Glen" in, ruD.:ning over a small boat ,wherein the was being transported UpOD the East river. ' " , , !tis supposed by the libellant that; the determination of the case depends upon the question of in question was cl1used by negligence OIl; the plutof those naVigating the steam.boat; but there lies the thfeshold of the case a question of law, which, as I view it, is decisive of the contrqversy. The of action set up in the libel is derived from a statute of the state of N:ew York which ' ,',. . provides that-;-, ' , , " . '...
,. Whenever the death of a person be cause,d by wrongful act, neglect,or default, and the neglect, '01' 'defaltlt is' such as' 'WOUld, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action ahd recover damages in respect thereof, then and a,nev:ery 8uchcase the person ·whd, or