Stone v. Steamship Co.

IIoKE, J. On the foregoing facts and according to our decisions defendant’s responsibility as common carrier, had terminated (Hilliard v. Railroad, 51 N. C., 343,) and any obligation which remained was that of warehouseman or wharf-inger. The standard of conduct in such case is that of ordinary care, and applying such standard to the facts before us, we are of opinion that there has been no negligence on the part of the defendant which amounts to an actionable wrong. The goods were placed on the defendant’s wharf according to local usage, known to defendant’s customers, and presumably acquiesced in by the plaintiff, as he paid the freight and commenced the removal of the goods without any protest as to their placing. While it is true that neither usage nor custom, as a general rule, ivill sanction or excuse an act which the law condemns as negligent, it is pertinent evidence on the question whether there has been negligence in a given case. Morehead v. Brown, 51 N. C., 367. Furthermore, the plaintiff had been promptly notified of the arrival of the goods, and, so far as appears, had been given ample time and opportunity to remove them. On the *196 facts disclosed in the.case agreed,The authorities are against the plaintiff’s right to recover. Chalk v. Railroad, 85 N. C., 423; Holdsclaw v. Duff, 21 Mo., 392. No Error.