{
  "id": 2090149,
  "name": "C. BENBOW v. NORTH CAROLINA RAIL ROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Benbow v. North Carolina Rail Road",
  "decision_date": "1868-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "421",
  "last_page": "424",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Phil. 421"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 N.C. 421"
    }
  ],
  "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": "2 Hawks, 145",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        11276018
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/9/0145-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 C. B., 839",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "C.B.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Met., 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Met.,",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Wend., 225",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wend.",
      "case_ids": [
        2017149
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wend/14/0225-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Met., 472",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Met.,",
      "case_ids": [
        1987900
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/51/0472-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 379,
    "char_count": 6684,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.07491112416206505
    },
    "sha256": "77e6b3e715eb46e803bd360040db79a9dd439dccc1d3e9851d81b7e28c5c5516",
    "simhash": "1:a00e64b1d90e3545",
    "word_count": 1226
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:16.220923+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. BENBOW v. NORTH CAROLINA RAIL ROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, C. J.\nThe car which brought the hogshead of molasses passed beyond the old warehouse to come in on theside trade, and was, owing to the location of other cars, stopped at the western end of the new platform, and was not brought back to the old warehouse. \u201c Plaintiff\u2019s driver applied for the molasses, and the agent told him to drive around, that it was at the west end of the new platform.\u201d In the attempt to remove the molasses from the car to the wagon, using the west end of the new platform as a resting place, the molasses was lost.\nIt is clear, from the statement of the case, that the defendant\u2019s agent intended to land the molasses on the platform at the old warehouse, and failed to do so because some other cars were on the side track; and it is to be inferred that the driver of the plaintiff applied tor it at the old warehouse, and was told \u201cto drive around.\u201d So we. must take it that the platform at the old warehouse luas the usual place at which heavy articles were landed, and the attempt to remove the molasses from the car to the wagon at the west end-of the new platform (a place, by the by, which was very ill-suited for the purpose,) at an angle of 45 degs., was resorted to by the agent of the defendant in order to get around the difficulty caused by other cars being in the way.\nWe hold, upon this state of facts, that the defendant is liable for the loss, on the ground that the molasses was not delivered according to its contract as a common carrier.\nIf the molasses had been landed on the platform at the old warehouse, the usual place of landing such articles, we incline to the opinion that the transit of the article would have been at an end, so as to relieve the defendant from further liability as a common carrier.\nWhether Rail Road companies are compellable to furnish hands to remove heavy articles from the platform to wagons sent to haul them away, is a question into which we do not enter, except to remark that such a practice would greatly promote the convenience of persons who employ the road and add much to its business.\nWe also refrain from expressing an opinion how far, if there be such a practice, the Rail Road companies would be liable for loss as common carriers, or'merely as bailees for hire, (we put out of the question the notion of a gratuitous bailment) because it is not set out in the case, whether there is such a practice at the Greensboro Station or not, and it may be that the attempt in this case to load the wagon is attributable to a desire to get the molasses into the wagon at an unusual and very unfit place, because of the difficulty of getting the car up to the right place. So this instance does not furnish any ground sufficient to infer a practice.\nAs is said in Hilliard v. R. R. Co., 6 Jon., 343 : \u201cWe prefer feeling our Avay until the necessity of the decision in some case may require a direct determination.\u201d\nPer Curiam. Judgment reversed, and judgment here foi plaintiff.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Scott <& Scott, for the appellant. \u2022",
      "Moore, contra"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. BENBOW v. NORTH CAROLINA RAIL ROAD COMPANY.\nIt is the duty of a Rail Road Company to deliver articles at the usual places of delivery. Therefore, where a hogshead of molasses, instead of being landed on a platform, the usual place for heavy articles, was lost in an attempt to deliver it to the plaintiff at an unusual and an unfit place, the Company was held responsible.\nWhether a Railroad Company is compellable to furnish hands to remove heavy articles from the platform to wagons sent to haul them away; and if so, whether for any loss occurring in such removal the Company is liable as a common carrier or only as a bailee for hire\u2014 Qucere?\nCase, tried before Warren J, at Spring Term 1867 of the Superior Court o\u00ed Guilford, upon the following facts agreed: The defendant transported to Greensboro, for the plaintiff, a hogshead of molasses. The car in which it was conveyed passed beyond the old warehouse to the* new platform in order to come in on the side track, and owing to the location, of other cars, was stopped at the west side of the new platform and was not brought back to the old warehouse. The plaintiff was informed by the defendant\u2019s agent that the molasses was at the depot and was requested to send for it. He therefore sent his driver with a wagon for it. Upon application by the driver for the molasses, the agent told him to drive around, that it was at the west end of the new platform, and the agent went with hands in the employment of the company to deliver it. The hogshead was then rolled out of the car upon the new platform and thence the hands of the defendant and the plaintiff\u2019s driver attempted to remove it into the wagon (which had been backed up'to the platform) by means of a plank which passed, at an angle of 45 degrees, from the wagon to the platform. In the attempt,' the hogshead rolled, fell upon the ground and burst. It was agreed that if his Honor should be of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, a judgment should be entered for the value of the molasses; otherwise a judgment of non-suit. The Court being of opinion w'ith defendant, gave judgment accordingly and the plaintiff appealed.\nScott <& Scott, for the appellant. \u2022\nDefendant ought to have delivered the hogshead at the old warehouse, the usual place. Hilliard v. I\u00ed. R. Go., 6 Jon., 343 ;Heal v. same, 8 Jon., 482; 1 Pars. Con., 663 n. v; Thomas v. Boston & Prov. R. R. Go., 10 Met., 472.\nDelivery was not complete when accident occurred, and under circumstances defendant must be held to have warranted the sufficiency of the method suggested by himself, as the plaintiff had nothing-to do with it. DeMott v. Lara-way, 14 Wend., 225; Graff v. Bloomer, 9 Barr, 114; 1 Pars. Con., 658 n. o. If plaintiff had requested the delivery at an unusual .place, defendant would not have been liable. Lewis v. West. R. R. Go., 11 Met., 509. See Richards v. London Railway, 7 C. B., 839, as to responsibility of a company for acts of porters in its employ.\nMoore, contra\nWhen the hogshead was safely landed upon the platform, \u25a0that was a delivery; and the company was liable no longer as a common carrier. That the plaintiff waived a deposit in the warehouse can make no difference. That hands employed by the company volunteered to assist the plaintiff, who was short of hands, to transfer the hogshead from the platform into the wagon, cannot involve the company in any responsibility ; at least, can involve it no further than, as an unpaid bailee, for gross neglect. Hilliard v. R. R., 6 Jo., 343; Neal v. R. R., 8 Jo., 482; Boner v. Steamboat Go., 1 Jo. 211; Stanton v. Bell, 2 Hawks, 145.\nHere the facts do not show negligence, and the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff. 2 Star. Ev. 970."
  },
  "file_name": "0421-01",
  "first_page_order": 433,
  "last_page_order": 436
}