Reply: A carrier is bound, not only to deliver the lumber entrusted to him for carriage, but to deliver it with reasonable promptness. The courts recognize the fact that promptness of delivery has an importance second only to the fact of delivery itself. What is to be held as constituting reasonably prompt delivery is to be decided in accordance with nature of the goods and all the circumstances of the particular case; it is such delivery as carriers of the kind in question, carriers by rail or vessel, as the case may be, ordinarily make in handling goods of the same kind as those in question. When the time arrives for delivery to be made, under this rule, and the goods are not delivered the consignee is entitled to sue for their value at destination on the day on which delivery ought to have been made. If the carrier is able to deliver the goods, and offers to do so, at any time before he has been required to pay for them as goods lost, the consignee cannot refuse to accept them and still recover their full value. He is bound to accept the goods whenever they are tendered, no matter how great the delay may have been; but in such a case he still has a valid claim for any loss he may have sustained as a result of the delay. His damages are at least as great as that amount by which the market value of the goods on the day of delivery is below their market value on the day on which delivery ought to have been made; to this is to be added any other loss or expense brought upon him as a direct result of the carrier’s delay.
THERE IS NO REMEDY AFTER ACCEPTING LUMBER.
Question.—I purchased some lumber from a party in New York State at a given figure f. o. b. shipping point, and had it forwarded by the railroad company according to my instructions. Upon arrival my customer reported to me a shortage of several hundred feet, of which I in turn notified the party from whom I bought. He stated that he hardly thought such a shortage was possible and asked me to retally the lumber. I communicated with my customer, who told me that the shortage reported was correct, and that he had used up the lumber as he was in need of the lumber, although I requested him to hold it intact. My customer in settling with me deducted for the full amount of the shortage, whereas the party who sold to me refuses to accept settlement on this basis, offering me an affidavit from his shipper that the quantity alleged to have been shipped by him was correct. Am I compelled according to the New York court rulings to remunerate the party who sold to me as per his invoice? He claims that the lumber ceased to belong to him when he placed it at the railway company’s depot subject to my instructions. For this reason he demands full payment. I am in a position to furnish an affidavit from the party to whom I sold the lumber to the effect that the shortage actually occurred at destination, although the lumber was received in good condition.