{ "id": 8653760, "name": "STORY LUMBER COMPANY v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Story Lumber Co. v. Southern Railway Co.", "decision_date": "1909-09-15", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "23", "last_page": "25", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "151 N.C. 23" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "53 N. C., 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1961011 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/53/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 N. C., 693", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655960 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/119/0693-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 N. C., 104", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657222 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/122/0104-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 N. C., 613", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274480 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/130/0613-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 N. C., 383", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656468 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/137/0383-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 N. C., 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269303 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/148/0087-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 386, "char_count": 7460, "ocr_confidence": 0.459, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.9565222803726575e-07, "percentile": 0.9040283815774588 }, "sha256": "b5fd168dddf0e39b4430a09b386fa031abc03e527d36de5e3b4000b6aa2455aa", "simhash": "1:6529cfa299cc8aa7", "word_count": 1249 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:26.349792+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STORY LUMBER COMPANY v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MANNING, J.\nThe defendant did not, as appears from the record of the trial, contest that it had carelessly permitted an unreasonable delay in the transportation of the edger, nor did it contest the rule laid down by his Honor for the admeasurement of the plaintiff\u2019s damages, if it was entitled to more than nominal damages. His Honor could not have granted the defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit the 'plaintiff, because the unreasonable delay, the breach of the contract of shipment, being uncontested by the defendant, the plaintiff was, in any view, entitled to recover nominal damages. But the defendant\u2019s exceptions do present as the only material point in the appeal the question whether there was any evidence proper to be submitted to the jury and from which they could reasonably find that plaintiff had sustained more than nominal damages. The facts relied upon by the plaintiff to sustain its contention are: (1) its name, indicating the character of business engaged in by it; (2) the nature of the article shipped, to-wit, an edger, a machine used by sawmills,weighing aboutl,000pounds,indicating an article not of general use, but for particular purpose; (3-) that the machine was shipped unboxed, uncovered and open, and thus observable by the defendant; (4) being a single machine, indicating that it was intended to be used in conjunction with other machinery; (5) the destination, being a section in which lumber was manufactured. All of which were under defendant\u2019s observation or knowledge at the time the contract of carriage was made. The admissions at the trial remove any suggestion that there was any express notice to the defendant, at the time of making the contract of carriage, that this machine was \u201cordered for a special purpose or for present use in a given way.\u201d\nWith the above facts open to the defendant, did they import or could the jury reasonably infer, that a breach of the contract of shipment would occasion an injury to the plaintiff greater than nominal damages?\nThe question was very recently presented to this Court in Furniture Co. v. Express Co., 148 N. C., 87, and is there fully considered in an able.opinion by Mr. Justice IIolee. By that decision and the decision of this Court in other cases it is settled that a plaintiff can recover more than nominal damages for breach of contract by unreasonable delay in performance: (1) when the special purpose or present use in a given way is expressly made a part of the contract or enters into the negotiations of the parties, (2) or when the article shipped is of such character that the .parties may be fairly supposed to have had in contemplation, at the time of making the contract, the special purpose or present use in a given way. Lewark v. Railroad, 137 N. C., 383; Sharp v. Railroad, 130 N. C., 613; Neal v. Hardware Co., 122 N. C., 104; Rocky Mount Mills v. Railroad, 119 N. C., 693; Foard v. Railroad, 53 N. C., 235.\nGuided by these cases, we are of the opinion that the evidence offered in this case was sufficient, to carry the case to the jury, and was of such character that the jury could fairly presume knowledge by the defendant that there was a special purpose or a present use for the machine, and that a failure by the defendant to perform its contract would result in more than nominal damages to the plaintiff. This is our conclusion, after a careful consideration of the authorities, including those cited by the attorneys for the defendant in their well-prepared brief. We are therefore of the opinion that the exceptions taken by the defendant at the trial below cannot be sustained, and the judgment is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "MANNING, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "A. P. Godwin and Ward & Grimes for plaintiff.", "W. B. Rodman and R. G. Lucas for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STORY LUMBER COMPANY v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 15 September, 1909.)\n1. Carriers of Freight \u2014 Unreasonable Delay \u2014 Damages\u2014Evidence\u2014 Nonsuit.\nAn unreasonable delay in transporting and delivering a shipment of goods renders the carrier liable to at least nominal damages, and when there is evidence thereof a motion to nonsuit should not be granted.\n2. Carriers of Freight \u2014 Unreasonable Delay \u2014 Special Damages\u2014 Notice.\nA verdict of special damages awarded against a common carrier, arising from its unreasonable delay in transporting and delivering goods to the consignee, will be sustained upon the question of knowledge, when from the evidence it appears that the shipment was a saw-mill edger, weighing about one thousand pounds, shipped \u201copen,\u201d to a consignee whose business was known to the carrier to be that of running saw mills, the character and manner of the shipment being such that the jury could fairly presume that the carrier knew it was for a special purpose or present use.\nWalker and Bbown, JJ., dissenting.\nAppeal from Peebles, J., Spring Term, 1909, of Gates.\nAction for damages alleged to have been caused by diminishing the output of plaintiff\u2019s sawmill, etc., by reason of defendant\u2019s unreasonable delay in transporting and delivering a sawmill edger.\nThe plaintiff purchased in Norfolk, Va., and delivered to the defendant for transportation to the plaintiff at Eure, N. C., on 16 March, 1907, a sawmill edger. This machine weighed about 1,000 pounds and was delivered to and carried \u201copen\u201d by the defendant. The distance from Norfolk, Va., to Eure, N. C., is forty-seven miles \u2014 nineteen miles to Suffolk, and from Suffolk to Eure, via Atlantic Coast Line Eailroad Company, twenty-eight miles. There was no continuous line of road operated by the defendant from Norfolk to Eure. 'The sawmill was delivered by the defendant (twenty-nine days after _ delivery for shipment) to the Atlantic Coast Line Eailroad Company at Suffolk on 15 April, 1907, and was delivered the same day at Eure, N. C., to plaintiff. The record contains the following additional statement: \u201cThere was no evidence that the Southern Eailway Company had any information whatever about the nature of the machinery, the purposes for which it was intended, and any inconvenience or loss that would be sustained by the delay, other than what was disclosed by the character of the machinery itself.\u201d The defendant, at the conclusion of the evi-deuce, moved to nonsuit the plaintiff. Motion denied. Defendant excepted.\nThe defendant requested the court to charge the jury as follows : \u201cThat there is no evidence of such notice or that it could be reasonably iiresumed by the defendant that-such consequences would follow.\u201d This request was refused, and defendant excepted. The court charged the jury that it was for them to determine whether the fact that the machinery was shipped open by the plaintiff over defendant\u2019s line, and that defendant could inspect the same and know for what it was intended, was sufficient to put the defendant on notice that the alleged damage to the plaintiff\u2019s business would occur, or to make them reasonably presume that it would. The defendant excepted to this charge. There was evidence as to the amount of damage sustained by the plaintiff, but no exception by the defendant to the charge of his Honor laying down the rule by which the jury should ascertain the plaintiff\u2019s damage, if the plaintiff was entitled to special damages. The only issue submitted to the jury was: \u201cWhat amount of damage is plaintiff entitled to recover, if any, of the defendant, the Southern Railway Company?\u201d The answer of the jury was: \u201cTwo hundred and ten dollars.\u201d From a judgment upon the verdict the defendant appealed.\nA. P. Godwin and Ward & Grimes for plaintiff.\nW. B. Rodman and R. G. Lucas for defendant." }, "file_name": "0023-01", "first_page_order": 67, "last_page_order": 69 }