Page images
PDF
EPUB

before this era, was realized, or even generally anticipated. This era was soon succeeded by the event of the introduction of the expeditious, commodious, and now common means of commercial transportation, and mercable and social intercourse by land; and so instrumental have Rail-Roads proved, in combination with the employment of the agency just mentioned, in cementing in this connection and dependence sections of country far removed from each other, that the interest of the mercantile and travelling public, and more especially of the legal profession, in the direction of the subject of the following work, has attained its acme. And yet, the only works professing to treat of the subject, and devoted entirely to its exposition, which the author has been able to meet with, are two productions by English authors, one by Jeremy, and the other by Jones,1 the first of which appeared in the year 1815, and the other in the year 1827.

It must be obvious, that neither of these productions is at all adequate to answer present wants, whatever merit may be justly ascribed to them, and however valuable they may have been at the time of their publication. The late learned Mr. Justice Story, in his well known and highly valued "Commentaries on the Law of Bailments," has indeed treated upon the subject, but then he has done so by considering it only as a branch of his general subject, and of course his exposition of the law of carriers is not nearly so comprehensive and satisfactory as it would have been, had he considered it independently or by itself.

1 George Frederick Jones.

The object of the author has been to consider the law on the subject proposed as it now is, and at the same time to point out such discrepancies as he has discovered to have occurred, in the course of the gradual adaptation, by judicial tribunals, of leading principles to the vastly multiplied exigencies of commerce and of society. In the exemplification of these principles, he has been impressed with a sense of the propriety, in many instances, of giving an expanded outline of the facts contained in an adjudged case. In general, the cases are consistent with each other in so far as regards a recognition of, and disposition to respect, the fundamental doctrines which have been so happily and ingeniously delineated by Sir William Jones, and by the late learned Mr. Justice Story, as the foundation of the general law of bailments; but yet, the decided cases, as reported, have individually, in respect to the facts which characterize them, points of divergement, which, while the common elementary chain referred to is essentially preserved, have frequently rendered them entirely sui generis.

In the case of Coggs v. Bernard, contained in the Appendix, Lord Chief Justice Holt, in his exposition of the law of bailments, clearly sets forth the principles on which the Law of Carriers rests. This learned Judge not only earned the reputation of considering justice as a cardinal virtue, and not as a trade for maintenance, but it has been recorded of him by a contemporary, that "his dicta and responsa might in general be regarded as text law, as those

1 See the Tattler No. 14.

[ocr errors]

of Paulus, Ulpian, and Papinian, in the Roman Digest." 1 As a well-ordered exposition of the law of bailment and of carriers, his argument in the case referred to, has rendered it a leading case on the subject, and has given it a rank among the most celebrated ever decided in Westminster Hall.2 No higher eulogium can be pronounced upon it than that expressed by Sir William Jones, when he is content that his own admirable Essay on Bailments shall be considered merely as a commentary upon it;3 and yet Sir William Jones has differed somewhat with him in regard to the division of the subject of bailments.4

Many doubts and intricacies have arisen from the attempts of common carriers to claim privileges and exemptions which are contrary to the theory of the law, as understood in the case of Coggs v. Bernard, and in subsequent and even contemporaneous cases. As has been said by a learned English Judge of modern times, "Carriers are constantly endeavoring to narrow their responsibility, and I, says he, am not singular in thinking their endeavors ought not to be favored."5 This remark was made in reference to

1 Preface to the reports of cases determined by Lord Chief Justice Holt, from 1688 to 1710: London, 1738. There was in Lord Holt “a clearness and perspicuity of ideas when he defined; a distinct arrangement of them when he divided his subject; and the natural difference of things was made obvious when he distinguished between matters which form an untrue resemblance of each other. Having thus rightly formed his premises, he hardly ever erred in his conclusions."- Ibid.

21 Smith, Lead. Ca. 95.

3 See "Lives of Eminent Judges," London, 1846, p. 135.

4 See infra, Chap. I. § 13.

5 Mr. Justice Burrough, in Duff v. Budd, 3 Bro. & Bing. R. 177.

the attempted evasion of the full Common Law responsibility of common carriers, by their assuming an abridgment of it by public notices to this effect; in other words, by their assumption of the responsibility only of special contractors. There have been comparatively but few cases of this sort in our American Courts, but yet the question, whether common carriers have the right to abridge their responsibility as. such, in the way referred to, has been very seriously considered in this country. We refer the reader to the cases in the Appendix, of Hollister v. Nowlen, and Cole v. Goodwin, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. They have been placed in the Appendix on account of the great importance of the particular subject to which they relate, and because they contain, according to Chancellor Kent, very able and learned discussions on the subject, and the validity and policy of the stern rule of the Common Law are ably and successfully vindicated." The same reason is assigned for having inserted in the Appendix so much of the late "case of the Lexington," so called, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, as relates to the same peculiarly important subject. The addenda to the Appendix consist of abstracts of decisions from volumes of reports which were not published until too late for those decisions to be incorporated into the body of the work.

That there are defects in the following work, the author is not so presumptuous as to deny. Errors he has studiously endeavored to avoid, but should any of importance be

1 See note a, to 2 Kent, Com. p. 608.

discovered, notwithstanding the care which has been observed, he may betake himself against too severe a storm of censure, to the partial shelter of an old reporter, (of no great credit for accuracy,) who thus speaks to his readers: "The errata may be not important, or uneasy to be corrected in the reading; wherein, if you be intent, you may find a reasonable reciprocation; your judgment may correct the erratas of the book, and the book perchance correct somewhat in your judgment; and then you have acted mutual kindness, each to the other." 1

To conclude, the author is aware that he has imposed upon himself an arduous undertaking; but he hopes that he may be rewarded, at least with the knowledge, that he has succeeded in a tolerable degree, in abridging the labors and in guiding the inquiries of the profession, and of others whose interest or curiosity may prompt them to be conversant with the subject of any portion of his work.

1 Pref. to Latch, Reports and Cases, En La Court de Bank Le Roy,

1662.

PROVIDENCE, April 20, 1849.

« PreviousContinue »