Colonial North America: Harvard Law School Library

American cases

Boyce v Anderson 2 Pet. 150. [1829] Case for drowning 4 slaves of [[?]] by bad management of debt boatHeld- The law of carriers does not extend to carriages of human beings- It is a rule of great rigor, & not to be extended to new cases, or to living men- As to slave-passengers, carrier is liable only for ordinary neglect-

The last mass note of reporter is erroneous- See 3 Am. Jurist p. 109. 13 Pet. 192. It should read as above stated-

Wane v Gay II Pick. 106 [1831] Coach wheel came off, on level road- the nut being worn loose- Held prima lacie evidence of negligence; & that the burden was on deft to show the sufficiency of the coach- & that he was not in fault-

This case plainly assumes the ground that if deft did all that human care & foresight could do, he is not liable-

Camden & Ambor Co. v. Burke 13. Wend. 611. [1835] Case for loss of baggage- by defect of black stage- Held that as common carriers defts were liable for baggage; though not for personal damage, unless happening "from the want of such care & diligence as is characteristic of cautious persons." Affirms the rule laid down to this effect in Christie v Grigg, Ashton v Heaven- & Sharpe v Greg-

Hollister v Nowlen 19 Wend. 234. [1838] This case turns on the right of carrier to limit his liability by notice &c -but recognizes & adopts the distinction between goods & passengers - viz] that for all the safety of the latter, the carrier is not an insurer, but is bound only to a proper degree of care & skill- See p. 236. See Clark v McDonald 4 Mlord 223. Same Distinction.

Stokes v Saltonstall- 13 Pet. 181. [1839] Case for injury by upsetting coach- drunken driver- [[his?]] wife jumped off, from apparent danger- Held, that for an injury by leaping to escape from apparent peril, caused by fault of owner, the latter is liable- [see Jones v Bryce 1 Stark. 402 ace.] - also, that as to passengers, the owner undertakes to their safety only as far as competent skill, & human prudence & foresight can go- see p. 191. approves this rule in Christie v Griggs- & Ashton v Heaven-

Story Bailew & 601. 601. a. 602. 498. 499. 509. 502. 571. a. 590 592. 2 Kent. Commn. 600.

See Story Bailew. 3d Ed. where & 592 is altered. 2 Kent. Commn. p. 600. 601. McKinney v Neil 1 McLean's R. 540 [[?]] injured by upsetting stage coach- Held 1st that upsetting was prima facie evidence of negligence- but, 2d that this might be rebutted by evidence &c

The reasons for holding a com. carrier liable for Cols from every cause but act of God & public enemies utterly fail in case of passengersfor 1: no danger of collusion with robbers &c 2: nothing to defraud of 3: no motive for breach of trust or duty 6: obligation to extreme care suft for every case 4: carrier cannot know the value of his risk beforehand 5: Nor protect himself by insurance- [re- insurance]

I have liv'd prudently - in fact I had no choice - for my purse could not afford me those luxuries I had been used to but my outdoor friends have been very kind in sending such little affairs as they suppos'd would be acceptable - you by this time perceive that I have nothing new to tell you even of myself - Phil'a {Philadelphia} has been extremely dull I am told the past winter - the Company of Comedians very weak - & the circus thinly attended - Politics have run high [?] party spirit has been very virulent - Fenno like a mad boy has relinquish'd his gazette & so topsy turvy are the times getting that I should not be at all surpriz'd to see Baches Aurora become a ministerial paper - the fever is dreaded the ensuing season as it is suppos'd that the plans for its prevention will not be effected untill the season is far advanc'd - indeed Phil'a {Philadelphia} has a dreadful perspective - now Brother George be as good as your word - & send the lengthy letter you promise me - I had allmost forgot to congratulate you on the prospect you have of being soon a father - accept my felicitations - adieu & believe me ever most truly & sincerely your Friend & affectionate Brother R Isaacs - Junior

{Debtors Apartment Philadelphia} March 11th 1799 Dear Sally Your short letter was most gratefully rec'd & I hope you will have frequent deputations of a similar nature - pray never again be so inattentive - & let me entreat you to continue to write especially during my present unhappy situation - tell me every thing about your assemblies - & the little chit-chat that is passing in {New} Haven - what young ladies are courted - who married - & whether any have broke their necks sleighing this winter - & how many drawers of baby linnen you have filled - & whether any smart beaux has step'd up to sister Sophia yet I am told by sister Grace that she is quite an Amazonian young lady - do Sally persuade her to write me a line - I shall write to her soon - yes very soon for my next shall be to her ladyship - accept Sally my warmest thanks for your attention to my little girls - I love you more than ever for it - adieu I am your bubber R Isaacs

Dear Sophia, For the first time in my life I address you in writing - I have long intended to write to you & although I now only drop a line yet consider it as the beginning of a correspondence - & tell me at least in answer how you have past the last two years - What schools you have attended & who have been your instructors - I suppose by this time you have forgot your kittens [?] [?] [?] permit me to condole with you on the melancholy subject of the death of your companion of youth - Poor Margarett - adieu Dear sister - I am your affectionate {Brother} Ralph Isaacs My Dear sister Grace - I acknowledge the [?] of your very kind letter - & feel much indebted for your early attention in I find that two letters of mine to you never came [?] [?] it to the inattention of the runner to our hotel [?] broke & dismays. From his office by our [?] I know not why? But my attachment to my relations of en[?] to an astonishing degree - I even dear call to remembrance all the little incidents of oc[?] & dwell with peculiar satisfaction on the [?] of our early friendship - I have never untill my [?] [?] realize the death of [?] dear Brother Will[?] have been bewil[?]ed enchanted & fascinated for [?] of late - but now find myself free - my children I love & will protect - pardon me for saying thus much - When you see my Father & our excellent Mother - [?]pare them of my entire love & dutiful regard - ask your best of men & husbands whether he need a lengthy letter from me in answer to his - I requested M Miles to hand A to W Willhoup to be forwarded - neither W Willhoup or any of our Connecticutt members did me the honour to call on me - I felt no mortification - my best love & respects to W Ingersoll - & ask to write [?] him that among the various letters I receive none are more welcome than those from him I love & esteem him - adieu Dearest sister & be affirmed I am your affectionate friend & brother W Ingersoll

George [Tod?] Esquire New Haven State of Connecticutt

Ralph Isaacs

mail

Kennebec SS. Sup. Jud. Court June Seven 1807.

Propr. of the Kennebec Purchase appts and original Plts agt. Abner Boulton, James Boulton James Savage, Savage Boulton and James Cuting, John Ward junr Saml. Ward William Ward & Jeremiah Robinson and John Hammond apped. & orige. defts.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, in which the Plts charged the defts with breaking their close & cutting down their trees.

The three Boultons, with Savage and Cating were defaulted: the other five defts pleaded severally the general issue, which was joined by the Plts.

A Jury was impannelled as well to access the damages against the five defendants who were defaulted, as to try the several issues. Upon the trial there was evidence that all the defendants were at the same time on the Plts close cutting down their trees and making them into shingles, which they carried away. But it appeared that the five defts who were defaulted formed a company by themselves and cut down the trees and made and carried away the shingles for their own use unconnected with any of the other defendants - It also appeared that the three Wards and Robinson formed another company by themselves, and the trees they cut down and the shingles they made and carried away were for their own use unconnected with any of the other defts. And it also appeared that Hammond was associated

-ciated with a third party, hr only [bf?] that party being [??] which third party cut down trees and made and carried away their shingles for their own use unconnected with any other of the defts. On this evidence a question was made in what manner the damages ought to be assessed. I directed the Jury that ^if they were satisfied that all the defts who had who had access were guilty^ they might ?? joint damages against the give defendents who were defaulted, according to the injury they had done the Plts - that they might access joint damages also against the three Wards and Robinson estimating the damages according to the injury the Plts had received from them, and that they might access several damages against Hammond measuring them by the same rule - The Jury found the defts guilty who had pleaded not guilty and assessed the damages against all the defendents agreeably to the direction I had give them - The defts who had pleaded move for a new trial on account of this direction, to have the opinion of the whole Court as to the rule of assessing damages in this case. The Plts also if the Verdict should not be set aside move the Court to direct the Clerk in what manner he should tax the costs.

T Parsons Ch. J.