{ "id": 11276696, "name": "WILLIE WALSTON v. JOHN MYERS et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Walston v. Myers", "decision_date": "1857-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "174", "last_page": "177", "citations": [ { "type": "nominative", "cite": "5 Jones 174" }, { "type": "official", "cite": "50 N.C. 174" } ], "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": "13 Wend, 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "case_ids": [ 2015710 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wend/13/0387-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 299, "char_count": 4414, "ocr_confidence": 0.416, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08, "percentile": 0.3181218287243774 }, "sha256": "c0c488fdbe4f612080f9e9516bff31746ec4cc3ccea4c187b1b63984065421ff", "simhash": "1:a6eaa6a8bffeedac", "word_count": 764 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:15:56.644691+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "WILLIE WALSTON v. JOHN MYERS et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Pearson, J.\nHis Honor was of opinion that the defendants were common carriers, and as such were liable, \u201cwhether they were guilty of negligence or unskillfulness or not.\u201d Such is the law in regard to common carriers, and we are inclined to the opinion that the defendants John and Nedding Myers, the owners of the steam-boat, were common carriers in respect to the plaintiff\u2019s flat they had in tow; but the other defendant, DeLand, who was the servant of the owners, was not a common carrier. It follows that be could not be made liable without proof of negligence or unskillfulness on his part; and yet, his Honor allowed a verdict to be rendered against him jointly with the other defendants; there is a j ndgment against all the defendants. There is error.\nPer Curiam, Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo.", "type": "majority", "author": "Pearson, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "B. F. Moore, for the plaintiff.", "Boclman and Donnell, for the defendants," ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WILLIE WALSTON v. JOHN MYERS et al.\nA master of a steamboat, being a mere servant of the owners, is not jointly liable with them as common carriers.\nActioN on the oase, tried before Saunders, J., at the last Eall Term of Pitt Superior Court.\nThe action was brought against the defendants as common carriers for failing to carry safely from Washington to 'Williams\u2019 landing on Tar river, a flat-boat belonging to, plaintiff, loaded with goods, which they had undertaken to tow from the former to the latter place.\nThere was a second count against the defendants (not as common carriers) for negligence and unskillfulness in towing his flat-boat, whereby it had been snagged and lost.\nThe defendants John Myers and Redding L. Myers were the owners of the steamboat Amidas, which was employed chiefly in towing flat-boats on the Tar river, and the other defendant, DeLand, was the master on board the said steamboat, employed by the owners as their agent and servant, to navigate and conduct the operations of the same, but had no property in the boat itself. On a certain day, the plaintiff\u2019s flat-boat, loaded with goods, was taken in tow 'at Washington, being firmly tied to the side of the steamboat in the usual manner, by lines from the bow and sides of the flat, and was so carried up the river safely to a point above Greenville. About two and a half miles above Greenville, and below Williams\u2019 landing, the flat was pierced by a snag and sunk, and the goods on board of her damaged. DeLand was on board of the steamer when the occurrence took place, but the other defendants were not present.\nThere was much evidence upon the question of negligence, which the charge of his Honor below makes it unnecessary to state.\nThe defendants contended, and requested the Judge to charge, that the action, though in form ex delieto, was founded upon the non-feasance of a contract, and that contract was made by the defendants, the Myerses alone, through their agent DeLand, and not jointly by all the defendants, and that, therefore, the plaintiff could not recover.\nThe defendants also contended that they were not common carriers; that their liability could only be founded on negligence or want of skill, and asked his Honor to instruct the jury that there was no want of the requisite degree of skill and diligence established by the testimony.\nHis Honor charged the jury that, if they believed the evidence, the defendants were common carriers, and, as such, were liable to the plaintiff for damages to the flat and goods in the course of the carriage, whether they wore guilty of negligence and nnskillfulness or not; that if they believed the evidence, the defendants were guilty of a joint tort, and liable to the plaintiff. Defendants excepted.\nHis Honor declined giving the instructions asked for by the defendants\u2019 counsel, for which they also excepted.\nYerdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendants.\nB. F. Moore, for the plaintiff.\nBoclman and Donnell, for the defendants,\ncited, upon the matter of the defendants\u2019 joint liability, Ohitty on Pleading, p. 100; Ibid. 96; Angel\u00ed on Carriers, 487, \u00a7519, note 3 ; Patton v. McGrath, 1 Nice\u2019s (S. Ca.) Nep. 162; Abbot on Shipping, 90, 91.\nOn the question, whether the defendants were common carriers, they cited Angel\u00ed on Carriers, p. 91, \u00a786, 673, \u00a7668, note 2 ; Gaton v. Barney, 13 Wend, 387; Penn., Del. and Md. Nav. Go. v. Dandridge, 8 Gill and J. (Md.) Nep. 109 ; Wells v. Steam Nam. Go., 2 Conn. Nep. 204; Alexander v. Greene, 3 Hill; 1 Parsons on Con., p. 645, note 2 ; Goggs v. Bernard, 1 Smith\u2019s Leading Cases, 332." }, "file_name": "0174-01", "first_page_order": 182, "last_page_order": 185 }